Legislature approves multi‑million dollar fixes for state public defender budget, raises contract rate to $125

The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee on March 24 approved a package of supplemental and enhancement funding for the Office of the State Public Defender that lawmakers said is intended to stabilize public defense statewide and increase the hourly rate for contracted attorneys.

Lawmakers voted to add a one‑time $2,500,000 from the Public Defense Fund to align the Child Protective Act appropriation with actual cash transfers; to provide $390,200 from the general fund to cover court‑ordered transcript costs following the Idaho Supreme Court’s State v. Blasek ruling; and to add $3,799,900 one‑time from the general fund to increase personnel and contractor costs for the remainder of the current fiscal year. The committee later approved a larger FY2026 enhancement package that would add ongoing funding and 17.96 full‑time equivalents to the agency.

Why it matters: Committee members said the appropriations respond to a rapid, court‑driven expansion of obligations and to shortages of available contract attorneys after the state began operating the public‑defense system. Lawmakers and staff said the money is needed both to meet the court’s transcript cost ruling and to attract contract attorneys back to take cases.

The committee’s actions included a change to the contract attorney standard rate. Representative Kevin Manwaring, who sponsored several motions on the department’s budget, told the panel the administration proposed a $150 hourly contract rate and the committee landed on $125 for this fiscal year. "The request was for $150 an hour and this brings that down to $125 an hour," Manwaring said during discussion.

Committee analysts said the $3.8 million supplemental for personnel and contracting includes raising the contracted‑attorney rate to $125 an hour for the remainder of the fiscal year and funding to increase state‑employed staff pay. Christopher Lahoset, a Legislative Services Office budget analyst, summarized the package and the split between one‑time and ongoing items for the committee.

Some members urged caution. Representative Wendy Miller, a member of the committee, said counties and the new State Public Defender's Office experienced coordination problems during the transition, citing missed memoranda of understanding and facility and staffing disputes. "There was a real lack of communication with the institutional counties," Miller said, and added she would vote against some of the measures because she was not confident additional money alone would fix management and transition issues.

Representative Manwaring defended the supplemental and the related policy work underway in the Legislature, including a pending policy bill that would add reporting and transition requirements and require consultation with district public defenders and county commissioners. He said the committee also added intent language to require an analysis of the efficiency and cost‑effectiveness of converting contracted services to state positions when appropriate.

Votes and outcomes: The committee approved the $2.5 million Child Protective Act alignment motion (15 ayes, 5 nays), the $390,200 transcript supplemental (20 ayes, 0 nays), and the $3,799,900 one‑time personnel/contracting supplemental (13 ayes, 7 nays). The FY2026 enhancement package—adding ongoing funds and 17.96 FTEs and increasing the standard contracted rate to $125 ongoing—passed the committee by a narrower margin (12 ayes, 8 nays).

What the actions authorize: The supplemental appropriations allow the State Public Defender to pay court‑ordered transcript costs this fiscal year, increase the contract rate being offered to outside attorneys to $125 per hour for the remainder of FY2025, and add state staff and operating funds in FY2026 per the enhancement motion.

Next steps: Some funding items included both one‑time and ongoing components; ongoing enhancements will be carried into next year’s budget activity and may be adjusted on the floor. Lawmakers said a pending policy bill on public defense management remains under consideration and could change administrative details and reporting requirements.

Sources and documents: Committee roll calls and analyst summaries presented by Christopher Lahoset, budget and policy analyst, Legislative Services Office; references in committee to the Idaho Supreme Court decision State v. Blasek and to a pending policy bill on the public defender office’s operations.

Ending note: Committee members said the items were designed to meet immediate obligations and to create time for implementation and oversight in the coming year. Several members urged continued monitoring of costs and coordination with counties to address the transition problems discussed in committee.